Map 10 – Insect and Disease Mitigation Potential<strong>Forest</strong> Type Low Moderate High Very High TotalSpruce-Fir 1,388,394 415,205 859,231 1,155,215 3,818,044Lodgepole 611,794 243,727 289,780 229,443 1,374,744Aspen 2,708,667 575,842 576,574 578,410 4,439,494Mixed Conifer 1,031,057 241,691 195,188 175,215 1,643,151Ponderosa Pine 1,695,524 230,167 144,630 131,089 2,201,410Montane487,892 74,506 73,987 79,067 715,453RiparianPiñon-Juniper 3,074,615 419,382 370,886 612,772 4,477,655Oak Shrubland 1,187,166 26,217 15,938 14,407 1,243,729Plains Riparian 17,192 1,086 745 2,243 21,266Introduced31,820 1,418 1,095 1,638 35,971RiparianTotal 12,234,122 2,229,241 2,528,054 2,979,500 19,970,917Table 10a – Insect and Disease Mitigation Potential by <strong>Forest</strong> Type (acres)34
Owner Low Moderate High Very High TotalUSFS 5,018,750 1,280,214 1,669,719 1,862,398 9,831,081BLM 2,356,340 354,645 336,323 557,934 3,605,242NPS 184,814 39,770 50,367 48,399 323,351USFWS 1,464 391 691 830 3,376DOD 31,073 2,416 2,309 1,388 37,186Federal-Other 3,332 262 194 137 3,925State 312,388 40,001 35,561 33,081 421,031Tribal 284,263 27,218 16,190 10,149 337,821Local Govt. 80,138 12,260 9,855 8,658 110,910Private 3,960,880 471,950 406,725 456,325 5,295,880Total 12,233,441 2,229,127 2,527,936 2,979,301 19,969,804Table 10b – Insect and Disease Mitigation Potential by <strong>Forest</strong> Ownership/Management (acres)Data Gaps• Need more consistent stand-level data for forest conditions on stateand private land so that a more meaningful analysis of forest healthacross ownerships can be conducted.• Need repeatable annual data on insect and disease activity that isconsistent across the state. Because the current aerial survey isconducted by different individuals and on different portions of the stateeach year, its results are subjective and sometimes diffi cult to interpretregarding the nature and extent of identifi ed activity.Noxious Weeds Overview: Non-native, invasive plant species pose a threat tovirtually all of the nation’s natural systems, including forests and woodlands. 32They have been characterized as a “catastrophic wildfi re in slow motion”(USFS 2004). Global trade and transportation have increased opportunitiesfor non-native plants to cross geographic boundaries as never before. Oncepresent in the landscape, non-native species often are able to out-competenative species because no natural controls exist to keep them in check. Thisis especially true when ecosystem health already is stressed by such factorsas drought, fi re, pollution, resource overutilization or other disturbances.In addition to causing massive ecological disruption and reducing nativebiodiversity, invasive plants also can negatively impact human health, foodproduction, recreational opportunities and economic sustainability. Invasivespecies, including plants, already have cost the U.S. economy $97 billion andhave contributed to the decline of 42 percent of the nation’s threatened andendangered species (Stein and Flack 1996).Although <strong>Colorado</strong> is relatively weed-free compared to some other westernstates, several non-native plant species designated as noxious weeds 33 areassociated with the state’s forests and woodlands. Among these species aremeadow knapweed, myrtle spurge and yellow starthistle, for which eradication32A species is considered invasive if it is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration, and if its introductioncauses or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm and/or harm to human health (USFS 2004).33“Noxious weed” is a legally defined term that refers to a specific plant species that has been designated formandatory control by branches of local, state or federal government due to the harm, actual or potential, that thespecies is capable of inflicting upon the resources and values of society (Uhing 2009).35
- Page 1 and 2: Colorado Statewide ForestResource A
- Page 3: Table of ContentsI. Executive Summa
- Page 6 and 7: II.BackgroundThe Colorado Statewide
- Page 8 and 9: National Guidance for Statewide For
- Page 10 and 11: III. Overview of Colorado’s Fores
- Page 12 and 13: Spruce-Fir 9Spruce-fi r is among th
- Page 14 and 15: Mixed Conifer 14The mixed conifer f
- Page 16 and 17: Oak ShrublandsOak shrublands cover
- Page 18 and 19: Windbreaks, shelterbelts and their
- Page 20 and 21: Owner Spruce-Fir Lodgepole Aspen Mi
- Page 22 and 23: forest management costs per acre ha
- Page 24 and 25: include standard ownership data and
- Page 26 and 27: The second metric is an estimate of
- Page 28 and 29: Map 4 - Colorado Forest Legacy Area
- Page 30 and 31: NATIONAL THEME: Protect Forests fro
- Page 32 and 33: Map 7 - Wildland Fire Susceptibilit
- Page 34 and 35: Map 8 - Wildland Fire Intensity Ind
- Page 36 and 37: ot (CSFS 2001 and 2002). Some insec
- Page 40 and 41: is legally mandated, as well as dal
- Page 42 and 43: change, including species extinctio
- Page 44 and 45: transport of materi als that can ad
- Page 46 and 47: Map 15 - Post-Fire Erosion RiskMap
- Page 48 and 49: environment, many homes and other s
- Page 50 and 51: Owner 0.5 mile 1 mile 2 mile TotalU
- Page 52 and 53: Map 18 - Wildland-Urban Interface w
- Page 54 and 55: Map 20 - Wildland-Urban Interface w
- Page 56 and 57: They also are important partners in
- Page 58 and 59: Forest TypeAcres for Wood Products
- Page 60 and 61: of fragmentation to help forest man
- Page 62 and 63: Forest Type Low Moderate High Very
- Page 64 and 65: Map 25 - Important Habitat for Econ
- Page 66 and 67: ACRESImp. Habitat for Econ.Imp. Spe
- Page 68 and 69: Forest Type Low Moderate High Very
- Page 70 and 71: Map 28 - Community Forestry Opportu
- Page 72 and 73: Enhance Public Benefits from Trees
- Page 78 and 79: VI. ReferencesAlexander, K. [Intern
- Page 80 and 81: Neely, B., Comer, P., Moritz, C., L
- Page 82 and 83: VII. Statewide Assessment Steering
- Page 84 and 85: APPENDIX A - Colorado Statewide For
- Page 86 and 87: • Identify and conserve high prio
- Page 88 and 89:
assessments and resource strategies
- Page 90 and 91:
National Theme: Protect Forests fro
- Page 92 and 93:
Protect, conserve, and enhance wild
- Page 94:
States are encouraged to draw from